I was actually glad when pope John Paul II of Rome stuck to his guns and commemorated the anniversary.
Commemorated the anniversary of Humanae Vitae? Why would you be glad about that if you don't agree with the encyclical?
Doesn't affect me any, It infuriated the secularists, which is a good thing.
No, just when you teach something that explicitly contradicts when the Fathers taught.
But does it really contradict? St. Paul talks about abstaining from marital relations at times, doesn't he? That's what NFP involves as well: abstaining.
Working also involves abstaining. St. Paul wasn't taking about that either.
And how's that working for you? A majority of the bishops, we are told, opposed the contraceptive scheme of Humanae Vitae. Well, they don't count, because the pope issued Humanae Vitae. So you are admitting that the pope=magisterium? Otherwise, can't see your point.
It's working out great. Never been happier. It sure beats all of the Protestant confusion I came from.
LOL. That doesn't say much.
If the Magisterium of the Church was truly against Humanae Vitae, we would be hearing about the Catholic Church holding a council to overturn it, but that didn't happen and still hasn't happened.
So we can assume it's infallible. That's not what Pastor Aeternus says, nor Vatican apologists when we ask on that point.
Once again, just a reminder, Magisterium equals the Pope and all of the Bishops,
Once I heard a priest say from the pulpit on EWTN that in the seminary they told them that the "pope has 51% of the Church's infallibilty."
so "a majority of the bishops" opposing Humanae Vitae doesn't equate to the Magisterium denying it.
No, just underlining the only vote that counts.
Being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, she doesn't need one.Correction: The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has one.
You mean the one who took the uncanonical decision of a local council, and at the emperor's command abandoned its apostolic roots and presumed to impose it on the Catholic Church, causing schism?
Since we haven't lost the Fathers' mind, that isn't a problem for us.It seems that Orthodoxy no longer thinks with the mind of the Fathers. The Fathers wanted no form of contraception and for sex to be only for procreation, right?
Before getting into that, I'll just reiterate the absurdity of characerizing Orthodoxy on contraception. It would be more justified to characterize the Vatican on its mandated clerical celibacy But that doesn't come up to the top of our list of grivences.
Your Fathers you cite do not say contraception, at least no definition which would distinguish ABC from NFP (so called).
Well, Orthodoxy allows NFP and artificial contraception, correct?
NFP yes, artificial contraception, depends what you mean by the term.
The Catholic Church allows only NFP and then only if the couples are using it while also being open to life.
your patristic sources do not allow NFP, and would see it (and strictly speaking HV contradicts itself on this) like living together while also being open to marriage.
What does this mean? It means that a couple cannot use NFP with the intent to never have children. Contraception is not just a pill or a condom, contraception is also a mindset and an attitude, which is why NFP even has the potential to be sinful. When couples put their own wills and plans above God's will, that is where trouble comes in.
So really, there is no difference between NFP and coitus interruptus, the latter being, based on success/failure rate, more open to life and with the same intent.
Now, neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church's stance on contraception look exactly like the Early Church Fathers, but ours seems to be closer since we didn't just throw in the towel and allow artificial contraception too,
No, you make an articifical distinction between "artifical" and natural.
and only allow NFP with restrictions. What is someone irritating is that many Orthodox claim that have had no development, but the current stance on contraception amongst Eastern Orthodoxy certainly seems like a development if not a downright innovation.
Only if you wish to see it that way.
At least we admit that we develop.
not in this you don't: I've seen no admission that HV is an innovation.
Speaking of innovation, something that rarely it seems gets brought up is the advances in scientific knowledge. Not contraception-whether the ancient methods worked as the ancients thought has no bearing on intention-but in what is really involved in conception. Many, like St. Clement, seem to make it clear that he held to the humunculus theory, that semen has a "little human" in it, like an embryo. Spilling seed would act like an abortifacient preventing implantation. Since we now know that such is not the case, we cannot proceed in ignorance on it.